Back
1994 Supreme(Mad) 195
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KANAKARAJ
K. Vaithianathan and Etc - Appellant
Versus
Union of Territory of Pondicherry, and Others - Respondents
W.P. Nos. 21780 and 21781 of 1993
Decided On : 17 February 1994
The second proviso to Section 88(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, does not apply to the case where the route is varied or curtailed.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - PERMIT - VARIATION - COUNTER-SIGNATURE - NECESSITY - SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 88(1) OF THE ACT - INTERPRETATION - TIMING CONFERENCE - CONVENING - PROCEDURE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a stage carriage operator, challenged the order of the Tribunal allowing the variation of the permit conditions of the third respondent, another stage carriage operator, which permitted curtailment and deviation of the route. The petitioner contended that the variation was granted without obtaining the counter-signature of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Authority, as required by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the second proviso to Section 88(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, which dispenses with the requirement of counter-signature for permits where both the starting point and terminal point of a route are situate within the same State and part of the route lies in another State, does not apply to the case where the route is varied or curtailed. The court further held that the tentative timings fixed for the varied route without following the procedure laid down in the Pondicherry Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, were illegal.
Issues: 1. Whether the second proviso to Section 88(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, applies to the case where the route is varied or curtailed. 2. Whether the tentative timings fixed for the varied route without following the procedure laid down in the Pondicherry Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, were illegal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the second proviso to Section 88(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, to mean that the word "route" refers to the parent route or the route which is sought to be modified. Therefore, the proviso does not apply to the case where the route is varied or curtailed. 2. The court held that the tentative timings fixed for the varied route without following the procedure laid down in the Pondicherry Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, were illegal.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition challenging the order of the Tribunal allowing the variation of the permit conditions, but allowed the petition seeking to quash the order fixing tentative timings for the varied route. The court directed the authorities to convene a timing conference and ratify the timings already granted to the third respondent.
The petitioners are stage carriage operators, and in particular, they are operating on the inter-State route Pondichery to Villupuram via, Ariyur and Kandamangalam. The third respondent is an operator on the inter-State route Pondicherry to Tiruvennainallur, via, Villaianur, Pakkam Cross road, Kariamanckam, Madagadipet and Valavanur. As per the permit conditions, she has to operate two singles on the entire route and eight singles between Pondicherry and Villupuram. The third respondent applied for variation of the conditions of the permit, seeking curtailment of the route from Villianur to Madagadipet and also for deviation of the route from Villianur to Madagadipet, via Kadamangalam. She sought for this variation in respect of all the singles operated by her, this variation in respect of all the singles operated by her, thus practically abandoning the original route. The application for variation was taken up for hearing by the first respondent on 24-1-1989. The petitioners objected to the curtailment and variation. First respondent, by an order, dated 24-1-1989 granted the variation, by permitting curtailment only in respect of the two singles on the route Pondicherry to Tiruvennainallur, but refused curtailment in respect of the eight singles from Pondicherry to Villupuram. The third respondent filed an appeal to the second respondent. By an order, dated 10-3-1993, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted the variation in respect of all the singles including the eight singles on the route Pondicherry to Villupurarn. In W. P. 21780 of 1993 the petitioner is seeking to quash only the order of the Tribunal, dated 10-3-1993. In W.P. No. 21780 of 1993 the petitioner is seeking the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct respondents 1 and 2 to prevent the third respondent from continuing to run on the route Pondicherry to Tiruvannainallur, pursuant to the order of the tribunal, dated 10-3-1993, without getting counter-signature from the Tamil Nadu Authority and without having a timing conference for the varied route. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the third respondent in respect of both the writ petitions.
2. W.P.No. 21790/93 can be disposed of, easily, because of the admitted facts, to which I will make a reference immediately. The main ground that is taken in this writ petition is that the appeal should have been disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. This contention may be well-founded if the appeal was pending on the date when the new Act came into force, viz., 1-7-1989. It is now admitted by both parties that as against the order of the State Transport Authority, dated 24-1-1989, the appeal was filed on 15-7-1989, after the new Act came into force. Therefore, it goes without saying that the appeal has to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the new Act. If this much is conceded, it cannot be disputed that an application for variation has to be disposed of as if it is an application for a permit, and so construed, there are no limitations for granting the variation. Consequently, the order of the Tribunal as such cannot be found fault with, because the order gives good and valid reasons and has taken note of the subsequent permits granted on the subject routes, and the variation granted cannot be asailed as arbitrary or unreasonable.
3. The point taken in W.P. No. 21781 of 1993 is much more substantial. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal, dated 10-3-1993, shows that the following.
"In the result, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is entitled to the following pattern of trips as per her variation application, i.e.,
Pondicherry to Thiruvannainallur, via, Kandamangalam, Madagadipet and Villupuram. 2 Singles.
Pondicherry to Villupuram, via, Vadamangalam, Thennal, Pangur, Kandamangalam, Thirubuvanai, Madagadipet and Valavanur 8 Singles.
The above variation of the permit will be subject to necessary concurrence from the concerned State Transport Authority
